BACKGROUND: Compared with conventional polyethylene, first-generation highly cross-linked polyethylenes have low wear, but controversy exists regarding their reduced mechanical strength and/or retained free radicals. Second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylenes have been developed to reduce wear, maintain mechanical strength, and have oxidative resistance, but it is unclear whether they do so. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The primary objective of this study therefore was to determine if a second-generation annealed material has low linear wear at 5 years followup. Secondary objectives were to evaluate for overall survivorship, implant fixation, osteolysis, and effect of socket inclination on wear. METHODS: In a multicenter prospective study, we radiographically evaluated 155 patients (167 hips) at 3 years, 124 patients (132 hips) at 4 years, and 46 patients (51 hips) at 5 years. The linear head penetration rate was measured at 6 weeks, 1 year, and yearly through 5 years. RESULTS: The head penetration per year after the first year of bedding-in was 0.024 mm per year at 3 years, 0.020 mm per year at 4 years, and 0.008 mm per year at 5 years. The average wear rate over 5 years was 0.015 mm per year and represents a 58% improvement over a first-generation annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship (revision for any reason) was 97.8%. We revised no hip for bearing surface failure and observed no osteolysis. Socket inclination did not affect linear wear. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest the linear wear rate for a second-generation annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene is no greater than that for historic controls of first-generation highly cross-linked polyethylenes, and no untoward complications were encountered with this new material. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Compared with conventional polyethylene, first-generation highly cross-linked polyethylenes have low wear, but controversy exists regarding their reduced mechanical strength and/or retained free radicals. Second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylenes have been developed to reduce wear, maintain mechanical strength, and have oxidative resistance, but it is unclear whether they do so. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The primary objective of this study therefore was to determine if a second-generation annealed material has low linear wear at 5 years followup. Secondary objectives were to evaluate for overall survivorship, implant fixation, osteolysis, and effect of socket inclination on wear. METHODS: In a multicenter prospective study, we radiographically evaluated 155 patients (167 hips) at 3 years, 124 patients (132 hips) at 4 years, and 46 patients (51 hips) at 5 years. The linear head penetration rate was measured at 6 weeks, 1 year, and yearly through 5 years. RESULTS: The head penetration per year after the first year of bedding-in was 0.024 mm per year at 3 years, 0.020 mm per year at 4 years, and 0.008 mm per year at 5 years. The average wear rate over 5 years was 0.015 mm per year and represents a 58% improvement over a first-generation annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship (revision for any reason) was 97.8%. We revised no hip for bearing surface failure and observed no osteolysis. Socket inclination did not affect linear wear. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest the linear wear rate for a second-generation annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene is no greater than that for historic controls of first-generation highly cross-linked polyethylenes, and no untoward complications were encountered with this new material. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: John P Collier; Barbara H Currier; Francis E Kennedy; John H Currier; Graham S Timmins; Simon K Jackson; Robin L Brewer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Charles R Bragdon; Susan Barrett; John M Martell; Meridith E Greene; Henrik Malchau; William H Harris Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Geraint E R Thomas; David J Simpson; Shahid Mehmood; Adrian Taylor; Peter McLardy-Smith; Harinderjit Singh Gill; David W Murray; Siôn Glyn-Jones Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Aaron J Johnson; LaQuawn Loving; Lizeth Herrera; Ronald E Delanois; Aiguo Wang; Michael A Mont Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Carmen Zietz; Christian Fabry; Lars Middelborg; Gerhard Fulda; Wolfram Mittelmeier; Rainer Bader Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Julio J Jauregui; Qais Naziri; Todd P Pierce; Randa K Elmallah; Jeffrey J Cherian; Ronald E Delanois; Michael A Mont Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Karen M Kruger; Nishant M Tikekar; Anneliese D Heiner; Thomas E Baer; John J Lannutti; John J Callaghan; Thomas D Brown Journal: Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 1.763